Tamil Nadu occupies a singular place in India’s political history because of its enduring and intimate relationship between cinema and power. For more than seven decades, film personalities have crossed over into politics, with some successfully transforming screen charisma into electoral dominance, while others discovered that popularity at the box office does not automatically translate into votes. Rooted in the Dravidian Movement’s early mastery of mass communication, this cinema–politics nexus continues to evolve, offering enduring lessons in political messaging, mobilisation, and the shifting limits of celebrity influence.
The foundations of this phenomenon were laid by Dravidian leaders who recognised that ideology travels faster through stories than speeches. While street theatre initially served as a vehicle for social reform, cinema’s unmatched reach soon made it the most powerful medium for political persuasion. C N Annadurai, the founding figure of the DMK, pioneered this approach by weaving rationalism, anti-caste thought, and self-respect into popular films, turning cinema into both a classroom and a political instrument.
M Karunanidhi refined this strategy with exceptional skill. His screenplay forParasakthidid more than entertain—it challenged entrenched hierarchies, questioned religious orthodoxy, and articulated Dravidian aspirations with unprecedented boldness. By demonstrating that emotionally charged narratives could generate social consciousness more effectively than rallies or manifestos, Karunanidhi showed how storytelling could become a pathway to sustained political power.
M G Ramachandran revolutionised this relationship by collapsing the boundary between cinematic persona and political identity. His on-screen roles as a virtuous champion of the poor merged seamlessly with his real-life image, allowing voters to project fictional heroism onto political leadership. MGR’s success established a replicable template—screen charisma converted into political capital—that would inspire generations of actors, even as it misled many into overestimating its reliability.
J Jayalalithaa rewrote these rules within a deeply patriarchal political culture. Unlike MGR’s populist heroism, her film roles projected dignity, authority, and modern womanhood. These traits carried into her political life, enabling her to overcome relentless gendered hostility and emerge as one of Tamil Nadu’s most dominant Chief Ministers. Her rise remains unmatched, underscoring how rare the convergence of timing, mentorship, resolve, and talent truly is.
Not all stars succeeded. Sivaji Ganesan’s failed political foray revealed that artistic brilliance alone cannot create mass political appeal. Vijayakanth, by contrast, briefly broke the DMK-AIADMK duopoly by building a credible alternative rooted in his “Captain” persona, though sustaining that momentum proved difficult. Later entrants like Sarathkumar and Kamal Haasan exposed the diminishing returns of celebrity politics, where name recognition without organisational depth or emotional resonance failed to deliver electoral success.
Rajinikanth’s much-anticipated but aborted political entry symbolised a larger shift. His withdrawal highlighted how modern Tamil Nadu politics demands far more than charisma—it requires durable party structures, ideological clarity, and long-term organisational commitment.
Within the DMK, the Karunanidhi family illustrates varied uses of cinema. While M K Stalin focused on organisational politics, Udhayanidhi Stalin used cinema strategically to build familiarity before entering public life, reinforcing that film remains useful when aligned with party machinery and political lineage.
The gender imbalance remains stark. Despite the presence of female actors in party roles, none have replicated Jayalalithaa’s independent rise, underscoring persistent structural and cultural barriers.
Today, Vijay represents the latest and most consequential test of this tradition. His political entry comes in a fragmented media environment dominated by digital platforms rather than cinema alone. While his films increasingly address social injustice and governance failures, key questions remain: can cinematic popularity evolve into organisational strength, ideological coherence, and governing credibility?
As Tamil Nadu moves toward the 2026 Assembly elections, its famed cinema–politics equation stands at a crossroads. Once the state’s most powerful mass medium, cinema now competes for attention in a crowded public sphere—making Vijay’s experiment a defining moment for the future of star-driven politics.
